[OSM-talk-be] Abandoned Railways / cycleways

[Marc Gemis]

Thanks for your reply Ben.

I don't care so much about the rendering on the main map, but on a Garmin
device it is annoying.

m


On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Ben Laenen <benlaenen at gmail.com> wrote:

> You should put the railway=abandoned and highway=cycleway/whatever on two
> different ways. The railway=abandoned on the location where the railway
> tracks were, the second where the path currently is, which isn't
> necessarily the same place, like in your last example. So yes, you get some
> places where if it's accurately mapped you'd see two lines almost running
> on the same course, but not quite.
>
> Other issue is of course: should the railway=abandoned even be rendered at
> all on the main map... but that's another discussion :-)
>
> Greetings
> Ben
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> While mapping my RWN walk near Hulshout / Westmeerbeek I noticed that
>> there were 2 cycleways next to one another, running from north to south:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.063594818115234&lon=4.8265814781188965&zoom=16
>>
>> One was simply mapped as highway=cycleway, the other had more tags and
>> was also part of an RCN relation. Further investigation showed that the
>> former used to be a railway=abandoned, but was changed to a cycleway in
>> December 2012.
>>
>> The ways are pretty long, running from Herentals to Leuven. The abandoned
>> railroad way has ID 116738269.
>>
>> I decided to reverse that way to railway=abandoned, but I'm not happy
>> with it. It shows to parallel lines on a map (I know, don't tag for the
>> renderer), but wouldn't it be better to add the railway=abandoned to the
>> cycleway. ?
>>
>> Similar situation here:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.06616973876953&lon=4.476719498634338&zoom=17
>>
>> and here
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.1060394346714&lon=4.379757642745972&zoom=17
>> in this case I wonder how you can see it, no remains are left.
>>
>> So why two lines for an abandoned railway and the cycleway/footway on it
>> ? Can't they be combined ?
>>
>> m
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20130414/23b491e7/attachment.htm>